The speech focused heavily on leveling the playing field between the U.S. and other countries so that America’s economy could be more competitive, and included key calls to action that would directly affect the startup community. He asked for an end to regulations that prevent entrepreneurs from getting financing, tax breaks for small businesses creating jobs, immigration reform, and more training for technology jobs.

There were some Silicon Valley notables in the audience. Instagram co-founder Mike Krieger was a guest, mostly likely invited to drive home the dual points that startups create jobs and responsible immigration reform creates startups. Also in the First Lady’s box was Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs’ widow. Obama name-checked the Apple co-founder while talking about the importance of encouraging talented people in business:

An economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country… we should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

Obama wasn’t the only one to drop the late Steve Jobs’ name for dramatic effect. In the Republican response immediately following the State of the Union, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana used him as an example of the kind of businessman Obama is supposedly against.

Contrary to the President’s constant disparagement of people in business, it’s one of the noblest of human pursuits. The late Steve Jobs, what a fitting name he had, created more of them than all those stimulus dollars the President borrowed and blew.

On the topic of startups and innovation creating jobs, Obama had this to say:

Innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs.

Obama cited the need for job training to meet our current needs, applauding existing partnerships, like those between companies such as Siemens and community colleges, that provide specialized job training:

Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job.

Obama asked for immigration reform for non-citizens already in the country, especially children and educated immigrants with skills and ideas that could contribute to the economy. The solution, a law that allows them to earn citizenship, isn’t a new idea. The DREAM Act, which would give some immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors a path to citizenship, was reintroduced to the Senate in May 2011.

Hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

The President also announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit to crack down on practices by other countries that he feels have negative impact on the U.S. economy. The unit will focus on counterfeit goods and monitoring unfair trade between the U.S. and other countries, with a special focus on China.

It’s not right when another country let our movies, music, and software be pirated.

No mention was made of the recent pushes by lawmakers to crack down on pirating of American movies, music, and software with the SOPA and PIPA bills.

The news was revealed after Alibaba’s debt adviser Rothschild sent out term sheets to banks, according to a Reuters report that cites people familiar with the matter.

Alibaba, a privately owned group of web-based businesses, is well-known for its online marketplaces for business-to-business international and domestic trade. The Alibaba Group also includes retail and payment platforms, a shopping search engine and data-centric cloud computing services. It employs over 22,000 people in around 70 cities and regions.

While some analysts estimate Yahoo’s stake in Alibaba is worth up to $9 billion, Yahoo is currently exploring the idea of selling the entire company — meaning Yahoo might accept Alibaba’s $4 billion offer. Alibaba CEO Jack Ma (pictured) expressed interest in buying Yahoo in October, but now it appears the company is focused on Alibaba itself.

Meanwhile, several other companies are rumored to be interested in purchasing Yahoo. As VentureBeat reported in November, Microsoft signed a nondisclosure agreement with Yahoo to take a closer look at its financial records, which could indicate the possibility of an acquisition. And in October, search engine giant Google was exploring the idea of a Yahoo buyout.

The deal will give Sprint unlimited access to Clearwire’s WiMax wireless network, which is noticeably slower and much harder to upgrade than the LTE networks used by competing carriers AT&T and Verizon. Meanwhile, Clearwire’s investors can breathe a sigh of relief, as this dispells fears that the company would declare bankruptcy because it didn’t have enough cash on hand to run the business.

In October, Clearwire reported that it was discussing the possibility of skipping an interest payment on debt it owes. However, today the company said it plans to make the $237 million debt payment.

And while the WiMax network isn’t great, it’s essential to Sprint’s long-term operations. Sprint is Clearwire’s largest customer and its majority stakeholder — so clearly it’s not in Sprint’s best interests to let Clearwire fail.

As part of the deal, Clearwire agreed to keep its WiMax network operational until 2015, which will give the companies time to build out their own LTE high-speed network.

The financing from Sprint gives Clearwire $926 million for unlimited network use for 2012 and 2013. The remaining financing is a prepaid fee for Sprint to use Clearwire’s LTE network, which should be available by June 2013.

Evelyn Rusli of The New York Times reports that the company plans to raise approximately $114.3 million by issuing 8.79 million shares, with underwriters Bank of America Merrill Lynch keeping open the option of adding an additional 1.3 million shares, if the initial flotation is oversubscribed.

Angie’s List, which lets users review a wide variety of service providers, from landscapers to surgeons,  is not a pure-play technology company. Angie’s List earns much of its money from paid search results, with contractors who wish to appear more often paying for placement.

Technology companies are once again testing the public’s appetite for their stock, beginning with the IPO of LinkedIn this past March. Social Games site Zynga has filed its S-1 and its IPO is expected before the new year. Yelp, another local reviews site for restaurants and services has also expressed its intention to go public and recently selected its underwriters.

Groupon, which became a publicly traded company on Nov. 4, listed its shares at $2o for its initial public offering. Groupon shares initially soared, hitting $28  per share on their first day, but have continued to cool. At the close of trading today, Groupon shares were trading at $24.07. LinkedIn shares, which debuted at $83 per share in May, were trading at $71.56 at the close of markets today, just as the employee lockout period comes to a close.

In the case of Groupon, Yelp, and Angie’s List, and to an extent, LinkedIn, the companies’ core products are not technological. So, while the public offering signal a return of tech stock offerings to the market, it is a bit of a mischaracterization, because none of the companies make and sell software.

Angie’s List, while not as well-known as other IPO contenders, is a 16-year-old company that raked in $38.6 million in revenues during the first six months of 2011, though the company is not yet profitable.

[Image Credit: Stuck in Customs/Flickr]

Here’s a look at the current and proposed crowdfunding rules, and how this bill could shake things up for startups.

What is crowdfunding?

As the term suggests, crowdfunding is funding from a crowd of people; that is, many people provide small amounts of money to finance something. Crowdfunding has its roots in charitable causes, including the advent of microfinancing to provide financial services to poor people, but has progressed to the online funding of creative and other projects via sites like Kickstarter and Rockethub.

Can startups use crowdfunding now?

Under current laws, startups may not sell stock or other securities through crowdfunding sites or social networks, such as Twitter or Facebook. They may, however, accept donations.

This is because of applicable federal securities laws, which have been in place (in one form or another) since the 1930s. The laws include the following:

• A prohibition against “general solicitation” — which means that a company may not offer or sell securities unless there is a substantive, pre-existing relationship between the company (or a person acting on its behalf) and the prospective investor. (See “Can I Raise Money For My Startup Via Twitter?”)

• Disclosure and state law compliance requirements if the investors are not “accredited investors” — which usually makes the offering too costly and onerous. (See “Ask the attorney — securities laws.”)

• A requirement that any intermediaries (including websites) must be registered with the SEC as a “broker-dealer” in order to legally accept any transaction-based compensation in connection with the sale of securities. (See “Finder keepers could be losers, weepers”).

What will the new crowdfunding bill do?

Basically, if this new crowdfunding bill becomes a law, all of the foregoing prohibitions and requirements will be lifted, and a startup will be able to sell securities through crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, or social networks like Twitter or Facebook, so long as the company (and its intermediary, if applicable) comply with the bill. According to the bill, the company will have to meet these key provisions:

• The company may only raise a maximum of $1 million, or $2 million if the company provides potential investors with audited financial statements.

• Each investor is limited to investing an amount equal to the lesser of (i) $10,000 or (ii) 10% of his or her annual income.

• The issuer or the intermediary, if applicable, must take a number of steps to limit the risk to investors, including (i) warning them of the speculative nature of the investment and the limitations on resale, (ii) requiring them to answer questions demonstrating their understanding of the risks, and (iii) providing notice to the SEC of the offering, including certain prescribed information.

Are there any downsides to crowdfunding for startups?

Yes, there are several key downsides that you need to be aware of before jumping into crowdfunding.

First, startups must understand that minority stockholders have certain significant rights under state law, including voting rights, the right to inspect the company’s books and records, the right to bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company, and certain protections against oppression by the controlling stockholders. Indeed, the more stockholders a startup has, the greater the likelihood that a disgruntled stockholder will cause problems, including filing lawsuits.

Second, having hundreds of stockholders is an administrative nightmare and will be time-consuming and costly. Presumably, each stockholder will be required to execute a subscription agreement and/or stockholders’ agreement to address key issues such as transfer restrictions, rights of first refusal and drag-along rights. There will also be administrative issues relating to voting and stock transfer issues.

Third, startups will likely have difficulty raising funds from VCs and other sophisticated investors if they have hundreds of unsophisticated stockholders. Needless to say, few sophisticated investors will want to sit on the board of directors of such a company due to the risks of lawsuits relating to director liability; and I would assume D&O liability insurance rates will sky-rocket for these companies.

What’s next?

Now we wait for the U.S. Senate, which hopefully will quickly pass a similar bill. The White House supports the House bill, so upon reconciliation, it will be signed into law. Then entrepreneurs will have a new option to consider when raising money for their startup.

Scott Edward Walker is the founder and CEO of Walker Corporate Law Group, PLLC, a law firm specializing in the representation of entrepreneurs.

[Crowd image via Shutterstock]

The projects will range from ones that will generate 5 megawatts worth of power to more than 100 megawatts. The firm is hoping to invest in projects that will generate around 1 gigawatt worth of power by 2016. Most of the projects the company will invest in will generate between 5 and 20 megawatts of power, CleanPath said.

CleanPath will invest money from the new fund in North America primarily. The companies that receive an investment will receive capital, lines of credit and mentorship from the advisors at CleanPath.

Once the solar panel plant comes online, CleanPath can sell its stake in the company and use the funds to invest in a new solar power project. Firms like CleanPath can provide critical funding necessary for startups and other solar panel manufacturers to bring a panel manufacturing plant online so they can start making money producing the panels.

The firm is based in San Francisco, Calif. The firm has invested in solar power projects that generate more than 50 megawatts worth of power and biomass renewable energy projects that produce 100 megawatts worth of power. It has financed, owned and operated more than $300 million worth of solar power assets, the firm said.

The funding comes from existing investors including AllianceBernstein, General Catalyst, Redpoint Ventures, Summerhill Ventures, Valhalla Partners and WPP. There were also unnamed new investors involved.

JumpTap claims that over the past 18 months it has experienced accelerated growth with significant increases in mobile ad network traffic, client ad campaigns and deeper reach into major verticals such as automotive, entertainment, consumer packaged goods and financial services. The network reaches 83 million consumers each month, a 30 percent increase from last year.

The company has already hired 35 new employees this year including chief media and revenue officer Todd Anderman, who was previously the digital content head of U.S. publisher Hachette Filipacchi Media. In September 2010, the company hired new CEO George Bell from venture capital firm General Catalyst.

There’s a lot going on in mobile ad networks nowadays. Online marketing company ValueClick acquired mobile ad network Greystripe in April for 75 million. Google purchased previously AdMob for 750 million and Apple acquired Quattro Wireless for $275 million.

It’s a rough time to be a start-up seeking funding. More and more entrepreneurs are looking for angel or VC capital, but the number of firms out there looking to invest is shrinking.

The numbers are startling. 90 percent of the VCs polled in a recent survey by the National Venture Capital Association predicted that the number of venture capital firms will decline, with 72 percent predicting the industry will shrink between one and 30 percent.

What does this mean for start-ups? In a nutshell: It’s more important than ever to stand out from the crowd – especially if you’re running a technology company. At Dolphin Equity, we receive about 500 business plans per year from technology companies. We tend to invest in about one percent of those.

I’ve been in the investing business for over 20 years. Here are five surefire ways I’ve seen to make your company memorable to a Venture Capitalist:

Explain why your technology is critical for the future - To be driven to invest, I need to believe that a company’s technology will be critical for the future of business and IT. For example, in 2000 we invested in Gomez, Inc., a leader in Web application experience management. We recently sold the company to Compuware for $295 million. Why did we stick with Gomez for so long? Because we believed in the current and future importance of web performance monitoring. Turns out, we were on point.

How is your delivery model relevant today? - With IT budgets fluctuating, a technology’s delivery model is very important. For my investments, the Software-as-a-Service delivery model is a key decision factor. We like to see technology-enabled services in a recurring revenue model. Does the VC you’re pitching have a preferred delivery model or any other key factors that they prefer in investments? It’s worth doing your research before pitching.

Check out the business model of the VC you are pitching - Speaking of research, do some digging around on the VC’s Web site. Are there trends among the companies in its portfolio? Does the firm look for long-term or short-term investments? Does the management of the VC like to help grow the company, or do they expect you to grow the company independent of their assistance?

What is your leadership style? - Some VCs (including us) like to get involved in the leadership of the companies they invest in. Are you open to your VCs input in how to run your company? If you have a proven track record of success and are receptive to changing your business, this opens your company up to a broader range of VCs.

Explain why your company is a must-have vs. a nice-to-have - It’s critical to convey why your technology is in the must-have category for business and IT. In telling the story of your company, do not forget why the target market segment needs your product. While technologies that will continue and grow in popularity are important, VCs are not in the business of anticipating what a market segment may want to buy in the longer term – we want to know what they want right now and will continue to need.

While the economy is finally showing signs of life, securing capital for early-stage ventures hasn’t gotten any easier- so it seems timely to let start-up owners in on the criteria by which they will be judged.

Each year our firm typically reviews more than 2,500 companies seeking seed or Series A funding and invests in between six and twelve. Here’s how we judge a young company’s viability.

First of all, we evaluate deals on three axes: The team, the market and the technology or product.

• We want a team with domain expertise in the market space—individuals who can see the opportunities in that market before they are apparent to others and can use that vision to become early movers in the market.
• We want the company to be targeting a market that is nascent or even nonexistent. It needs to be a market the entrepreneurs believe will, at some point, grow rapidly, creating an opportunity for the company to move faster than any incumbents.
• The company needs to have a product with some level of defensibility – something that’s not easily replicable once the market becomes more obvious to others.

In addition to these primary criteria, there also has to be a scalable business model that can generate interesting valuation multiples over time. Having a good way to make money is not enough; a high-growth market to support it and a team and product that can take advantage of that market opportunity are essential.

The next step is to ask hard questions across these three axes. If you’re in the hunt for capital, here are some of the questions you’re likely to hear:

Team

• Can the founding team succinctly and consistently articulate the company’s business opportunity?
• Can they succeed in an unstructured environment? Are they comfortable with uncertainty? If the founders are from large companies, it’s helpful if they have some sort of track record in taking risks or starting something new.
• Do they have a demonstrated ability to stay focused on the critical objectives?
• Do they have the ability to challenge conventional wisdom and think differently? This is perhaps one of the most significant hallmarks of an outstanding entrepreneur.
• Do they have a roadmap for the company culture? Surprisingly, many founders never consider this.
• Do they understand the value of frugality and the need to ruthlessly prioritize spending?
• Do they have realistic expectations of their positions in the organization and how that will evolve? In other words, are they comfortable with potentially not being a chief executive? This very issue can break up even the best of companies.
• Is there a shared vision for the future of the company and its liquidity event? In this economic climate it’s more important than ever that company founders are focused on building a company for the long term.

Market

• Is there a market that can grow exponentially to create an opportunity for a new entrant? “Exponentially” is key here. Solid growth may just not be fast enough to enable success.
• Is there a scalable business model?
• Is there a low-cost go-to-market plan relying on reasonable and realistic distribution channels? Lack of low-cost and scalable distribution is another small company killer.  Are there large partners who could help reduce the cost of customer acquisition?
• Are there three or less startup competitors vs. many?
• Has there been some validation of the market opportunity, whether through a pilot or beta, or through research? Actual testing or feedback on a prototype by customers is always preferred, but for systems and semiconductor companies, research may have to suffice.
• Do they have the ability to capture the imagination of investors as to why this could be a really large market opportunity? Are they convincing as to why they could be the market leader in the space? If they can’t capture the imagination of investors, it’s unlikely they can capture significant market share with customers.

Product

• Is it simple to articulate and understand?
• Is there a clear value proposition about the pain point or problem it’s solving and why this product or technology will uniquely address that need?  There must be enough of a problem that customers are willing to risk buying from a startup.
• Is there intellectual property or at least some “secret sauce” that makes it defensible? Patentable concepts are desired but not required.
• Is the intellectual property free and clear from previous employers or others?
• For a company selling a product, are the projected gross margins more than 50 percent?
• Will the product be available within 12 to 18 months? Product should be in development, not just at research stage.

Despite what could still be considered a tough fundraising environment, early-stage venture capital investing is alive and well. If your start up meets the criteria outlined here, you should have no problem securing funding.